3 ms·
I think the slide was correct in expressing the idea it wanted to express using terms that are commonly used in the sense they used, while the parent was being
by nemo 11y ago
I think the slide was correct in expressing the idea it wanted to express using terms that are commonly used in the sense they used, while the parent was being pointlessly pedantic in wishing the terms had some strict sense that was the only true definition.
Sometimes terms do have very strict definitions that are only correctly used in a limited sense. In the case of compiled vs. interpreted that's not the way things are and criticizing an introductory doc. for not adhering to an arbitrarily selected strict definition is pedantic and counter-productive.
- inglor 11y agoNo, seriously. All the lecture had to say to be correct and at least as useful is that C requires a build step unlike a lot of high level languages which don't. Nothing about compilers vs interperters, none of that is relevant and the fact it's totally - incorrect is just icing. This is not a terminology debating society, you're welcome to look up the definitions on wikipedia or take an introductory CS course if you're not sure what a compiler is or the difference between a language and a compiler/interpreter for it.
- nemo 11y agoYou're right that if the slide said C requires a build step unlike a lot of high level languages it would be correct. The terms "interpreted language" and "compiled language" have a sense in normal usage that I described, and I just verified that Wikipedia doesn't agree with you. There are no standards bodies that define formal definitions for those terms, common usage is how they are defined. All this is pointless pedantic quibbling, though, so it wasn't really worth my time, nor is it worth yours, really.